| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: Question: test "aggregates" failed in 32-bit machine |
| Date: | 2022-10-02 21:36:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1250714.1664746608@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> As for the slight misuse of group_pathkeys, I guess since there are no
> users that require just the plain pathkeys belonging to the GROUP BY,
> then likely the best thing would be just to rename that field to
> something like groupagg_pathkeys. Maintaining two separate fields and
> concatenating them every time we want group_pathkeys does not seem
> that appealing to me. Seems like a waste of memory and effort. I don't
> want to hi-jack this thread to discuss that, but if you have a
> preferred course of action, then I'm happy to kick off a discussion on
> a new thread.
I don't feel any great urgency to resolve this. Let's wait and see
what comes out of the other thread.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-10-02 21:51:23 | Re: CI and test improvements |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-10-02 21:35:06 | Re: CI and test improvements |